On June 3, 2026, the New York Times’ opinion columnist Lydia Polgreen published an article titled “Lebanon Is Fed Up, and Ready to Remake Itself.” This article demonstrates how easily the Times makes critical factual mistakes regarding contested issues on which there is readily available data. The factual mistake is evident in what Polgreen claims is the globally accepted solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict: she asserts that a one-state solution for the conflict is an emerging global consensus, but this is not the case. What stands out about this argument, aside from its blatant untruthfulness, is that it could have been easily avoided with very little journalistic work.
Polgreen’s Statement
In the article, Polgreen speaks with Nawaf Moussawi, a senior Hezbollah politician and former ally of Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader assassinated by Israel in September 2024. Moussawi tells Polgreen that the solution for the problems in the region is, essentially, a one-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. Polgreen then writes:
Israel’s maximum-war doctrine in the aftermath of Oct. 7 has eroded its standing across the globe, making Moussawi’s position — that Israel should be a single pluralistic, democratic state with equal rights for Palestinians — something closer to an emerging global consensus. (Emphasis added)
The Evidence
Arguing that a certain position has become 1) global, and 2) a consensus requires at least some substantial evidence. Polgreen provides none.
The overwhelming evidence shows quite the opposite. Consider the slew of easily accessible U.N. resolutions on Israel as well as public opinion surveys of Israelis and Palestinians.
Just recently, in September 2025, the U.N.’s General Assembly endorsed the “New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.” It was supported by 142 states, with 10 opposed and 12 abstaining. In fact, the General Assembly has consistently supported the two-state solution since Resolution 181 in 1947. So, too, has the U.N. Security Council.
Israelis and Palestinians are also split on a solution to the conflict. A 2025 survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, found that only 12 percent of Palestinians prefer “a single state with equality between the two sides.” Moreover, this survey directly contradicts Polgreen’s assertion of an “emerging global consensus” on a one-state solution. It shows that Palestinian support for a two-state solution increased from 32 percent in Sep. 2023 to 45 percent in Oct. 2025.
A more recent Arab Barometer survey from Apr. 5, 2026, similarly found that Palestinians, especially in Gaza, increasingly favor the two-state solution, with support for a one-state solution at only six percent.
In Israel, a March 2026 survey by Tel Aviv University found that Polgreen’s “global consensus” of a single democratic egalitarian state is not the preferred solution among either Jews or Arabs.
Opinion, Accuracy, and Ethics
While Polgreen writes as an opinion article, she states the “global consensus” regarding the one-state solution as a fact. But readily available data shows this is clearly not true. Her claim should have been fact-checked and removed from the article.
As part of her journalistic ethics, Polgreen writes: “I am an opinion columnist and write about my views and convictions, but I am deeply committed to independence, rigorous reporting and accuracy.” Making the one-state global consensus claim violates her own journalistic ethics.
This is not the first time a Times opinion section columnist has made factually problematic assertions. Following the recent controversy surrounding Nicholas Kristof’s column on Palestinian prisoners in Israel, a source at the Times said to the Israeli news outlet Ynet: “we feel the opinion section is hurting the credibility of the entire brand and repeatedly lowering the professional standard for all of us.” Ynet continued:
The remarks join testimony from another journalist who told Puck, “I am sick of being embarrassed by the Opinion section.” Other reporters are frustrated by damage to the paper’s reputation from decisions by a department they say is not subject to the same strict standards.
Polgreen’s column only further damaged the credibility of the newspaper. The embarrassment of its reporters is certainly an understandable sentiment.